My Catholic Faith Pushes Me To Obama

As a Catholic, I think Sen. Barack Obama is the best candidate for President of the United States. I say this not despite, but rather because of his nuanced position on abortion. As we see a resurgence of the culture wars in this election, particularly in the days following "pro-life" Gov. Sarah Palin's selection as Sen. John McCain's running mate, my past experience as a conservative Catholic single-issue voter seems relevant. I'm writing this for my sisters and brothers who still are those kinds of Catholic voters.

I started my freshman year at Franciscan University of Steubenville, Ohio, when I was barely 17, skipping my senior year of high school in my enthusiasm to get started on Catholic higher education. I quickly joined Students for Life, the campus pro-life group, and began spending Saturday mornings with 6 am mass and an hour drive to Pittsburgh to pray in front of the abortion clinic. That first year I was a bus captain on the trip to Washington, D.C. for the March for Life, as well as head of the Students for Life Prayer Team. I was interviewed on the conservative Catholic TV station
EWTN as a young pro-life leader.

On my breaks from school, I worked at my hometown's Catholic bookstore, where I reorganized the books based on theological theme and offered customers advice about saints, prayer, and the like. I also volunteered at the local crisis pregnancy center, where we offered free pregnancy tests, infant formula, children's clothing, and other services to help women who were pregnant and needed extra support. I went to daily mass and weekly confession, as I had since high school. I marched in the occasional local abortion protest. I read theology in my free time.

I was, in other words, the perfect Steubenville Catholic student: devoted to my prayer life, diligent in my studies, involved in student life, and passionate about the pro-life cause.

My Steubenville honeymoon was not to last, however. For while I prayed for an end to abortion and the conversion of souls, I also saw the depressed ex-steel town in which the university resided, and I felt a disconnect between the spiritual fervency on campus and the poverty
surrounding it. I was ashamed to have the money to be a full-time student when the neighborhoods next door to the university were filled with dilapidated houses and people forced out of work when the steel mills closed. Big questions started plaguing me: Was it really enough to make these people observant Catholics, as the general thinking on campus went? Were all of their socioeconomic problems really caused by the fact that they used birth control? Would overturning Roe v. Wade really be enough to solve the poverty, under-education, and chronic unemployment rampant in the town and the world?

I started wondering why, in my class on Catholic social teaching, the professor only highlighted the parts of the Catholic tradition that condemned communism and promoted free trade. What about teachings against corporate corruption and exploitation of workers? The
general assumption that a good Catholic voted Republican began to grate on me, because so many of the GOP policies were in direct violation of Catholic teaching about human dignity. How could the party of unregulated corporate greed be the party for solidarity with
the poor? I started wondering if maybe more could be done to solve the abortion problem by addressing the socioeconomic causes, rather than the obsession with overturning Roe v. Wade that filled our thinking. I started seeing the need for systemic change - the need to question, as
Dorothy Day put it, "this dirty rotten system" of unfettered free market capitalism.

At last, I realized that to be a good Catholic had nothing to do with being a good Republican, and that in fact there is a proud tradition of a Catholic Left. And so someone smashed in my car window and ripped off my "What would Jesus bomb?" bumper sticker, my small protest
against the Iraq war. My peers called my house "the liberal nest of sin." At parties people sometimes asked me how I could even call myself a Catholic.

It is those voices that I hear again in the enthusiasm over "pro-life" Gov. Sarah Palin, whose views on criminalizing abortion seem to trump her well-documented personal record of corrupt and cronyistic bullying. So for those of you who insist on being "single issue"
voters this election, I suggest that you may do well to dig under the tired rhetoric of Republicans feverishly seeking your votes and consider the following.

Why, in 12 years of a Republican-controlled Congress (1994-2006), 6 of which with a supposedly pro-life Republican President (2001-2007), has no human life amendment to outlaw abortion come up for a vote? Could it be that the GOP may have some motivating interest in keeping abortion legal indefinitely as an issue to galvanize voters at election time, winning Republicans easy
votes?

And if you actually want to reduce abortions, you may do well to note the findings in the 2008 study by Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, showing the role that economic factors have on the decision to abort, and also how addressing those factors actually reduces abortions.

If, after all this, you still want to vote for Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin - well, then, by all means do. Freedom of conscience is an important aspect of the Catholic teaching, too. But please stop acting like it's the only authentically "Catholic" way to vote; even the U.S. bishops disagree.

Comments

[mjuergens]

POST 2
Catholic, guided by a conscience formed by Catholic moral teaching" (#37). Catholic Moral teaching has clearly stated that the right to life is the most fundamental right and that it is morally evil to willingly support a candidate who promotes or supports abortion. "A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism...In such cases a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil." (# 34)

I understand your belief that the bishops encourage us to look at all the issues, which is true, but you must remember that they also clearly point out that to avoid making distinctions between the issues is a distortion of the Church's defense of human life and dignity. "The direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life from the moment of conception until natural death is always wrong and is not just one issue among many. It must always be opposed." (# 28).

I hope this helps clarify the bishops' stance as well as the teaching of the Church. This election is a very important one and I pray that every Catholic will seriously study the teachings of the Church (unlike Speaker Nancy Pelosi) and understand the importance of protecting the life of the innocent babies in the wombs of their mothers.

God Bless you!

[mjuergens]

I read the bishop’s document on Faithful Catholic Citizenship, but I don't think you read the entire document, or at least one of the most important parts. First, the bishops, in recognizing the need to look at all issues when voting, did make it explicitly clear that the respect for life, most especially that of the unborn child, is unequivocally the most important of all issues. The document reads, "Human Life is sacred. The dignity of the human person is the foundation of a moral vision for society. Direct attacks on innocent persons are never morally acceptable, at any stage or in any condition. In our society human life is especially under direct attack from abortion." (44 in the document). Now, of course, this does not exclude other attacks on human life (poverty, euthanasia, hunger, etc...) but, as the document says later, "Every human being has a right to life, the fundamental right that makes all other rights possible." (# 49). It is clear, from this quote, that in order to look at the other issues of human life one must FIRST recognize the dignity of the human person at its very beginning. Abortion is a direct attack upon this fundamental right and must not be overlooked.

I'm sure you would agree that it's important to take into account the entire doctrine of Catholic Moral teaching. The Catholic Bishops state that "In the end, this (voting) is a decision to be made by each

[mikeydrew]

There are many points Ms. Lundgen did not make concerning abortion because they are not what the article is about. The article is not about abortion, pro or con, but about the hypocrisy of conservative Catholics and the Christian Right in general in dealing with the fundamental social problems that leading women to choose abortion in the first place. Most commented to this article refuse to offer solutions to the underlying issues related to abortion and simply to criticize her support of pro-choice because which is based on those conditions. Often the choice for abortion is literally socioeconomic survival of the mother. And Contrary to other comments Roe v. Wade actually takes government out of the equation.

Only Senator Obama offers the prospect of working toward minimizing the need for abortion, and for that reason is the right candidate for Christians to support on the issue.

Christian hypocrisy shows a lack of charity on other issues. Though ideologically orthodox Catholic myself, because I am Black, meaness and marginalization challenge my faith. From the war in Iraq, to calumnious gossip, are you always that righteous Christian you profess in your outrage against abortion, or are your own shortcomings the moat in your eye?

Finally, what would Christ do regarding abortion? Stone the doctors and their patients at the gate, smash their car windows? Or would he provide love and comfort and forgive them their transgressions? Christian means to be Christ-like. Which Christ are you striving to be?

[Gty85663]

Like Ms. Lundgren, you miss the point. The goal is not to REDUCE abortions, but to END abortions.

The only reason people are making the "choice" to kill their babies is because it is readilly and legally available.

The other issues (war, etc) are very valid, but do you see the hypocricy of being against war, but living in a country where it is legal to kill innocent babies?

You talk about peolpe chosing abortion for the socioeconomic survival of the mother -- but I ask again -- What about mothers of children outside the womb who fall into hard econimic times? Are we to then allow them to also kill their toddlers because they are unable to care for them?

It also just doesn't make logical sense to vote for a pro-choice politician to end abortion. Pro-choice politicians will not vote in a way that respects ALL human life -- inside AND outside the womb.

[SeKelley]

Well clearly the best way to END abortions is to see to it that they are illegal, punishable by steep sentencing, and a lifelong criminal record.

Of course this is the best approach, since it worked so well in ending drug abuse, automatic weapon violence, and stopping teen smoking. Yep - I recall those fond 1960's when abortion was illegal, and no one managed to get one - ever.

I have to go back to respecting human life now. Let me get back to being a citizen of the country who supports the death penalty.

[PDidy]

As a Steubenville alumn myself these types are pretty familiar. They flame out quickly after their initial excitement and youthful naivete confronts hard realities and they don't have answers. Its unfortunate that she now defends those who protect infanticide. Its unfortunate that she abuses Catholicism in the process.

[Gty85663]

Amen. These students really need prayers when set out "into the world". Unfortunately, she is being fortified in her misguided thoughts by those who congratulate her on her article here. I pray that she doesn't become so "intellectual" as to forget the Truth. I pray that she realizes that just because she is getting the "approval" of the masses doesn't mean that she is right.

[SeKelley]

I believe some salient points are really overlooked here. Ms. Lundgren's post reminds us that no one is "pro-abortion" per se, only pro-choice. The right to choose cannot be labeled the right to infanticide, else even Palin's support would be flawed in allowing abortion when the mother's life is in danger - whose life is more valuable? Is THAT our choice?
Further, as a society we encourage education and thoughtful deliberation from our students and youth before we "set them out into the world," and it seems that Ms. lundgren has carefully considered both her education and her spirituality, finding them not misaligned, but instead finding their commonalities. To speculate that she has "flamed out" debases her well-formed consideration of an arguably difficult question.
Nowhere in her post did I read her condoning abortion, rather she has condoned measures proposed by Obama that would, in turn, reduce unwanted pregnancies. That reduction naturally reduces the number of abortions.
We should applaud ms. Lundgren's search for "Truth" (capital T) as she parses the logistical truth (lowercase t). As for me, I shall pray that she relies on no one's approval in her spiritual AND intellectual pursuit.

[Gty85663]

But, you see, that is where your argument is flawed. You’ve invented this theory in your head – this conspiracy theory – that pro-life politicians are holding out on the abortion issue to get them elected. Where is your proof of this?

Yes, abortion is still legal – even after pro-life admins, but you have to look at the voting records of what pro-life politicians have done. THAT’S how you actually get things done – not but putting pro-choice politicians in power! And there are still the appointments to the Supreme Court to consider.

With all intended respect, your argument makes no sense: Vote for pro-choice politicians to end abortion???? I see what you mean about the “conditions” that people’s lives are in which may “force” them to choose abortion, but you DO realize, don’t you, that they are only choosing it because it is READILLY AVAILABLE!!!

Perhaps if it were legal to kill my spouse when I was tired of them instead of divorcing them, I’d choose THAT option because it was easier and probably less expensive than a costly court trial? Sounds ridiculous? But hey, if that option were available, maybe someone would choose it?

[studious]

Again, the point is this:
Whether or not a person would condone an abortion in their family is not the issue as we are all PRO-CHOICE. The question is are we PRO GOVERNMENT CHOICE or PRO INDIVIDUAL CHOICE.
We can trust our own mothers, sisters, aunts, and friends much more than we can trust whomever is in power at any given time.
You can't actually want MORE government in our lives.

[Gty85663]

If you'd excuse me, YOU are missing the point:
In this country it is LEGAL to kill a baby so long as it is still in its mother's womb!
Yes, I am pro-chioce, but I STILL think it should be illegal to KILL someone. Abortion is KILLING! Should the government NOT get involved with ANY killing?
Are you saying that all KILLING should be legal and to leave it up to the individual? What offence, I ask you, has any baby in the womb commited against its mother to justify its mother killing it?

[doc4converse]

Thank you very much for this article. People forget that Catholics are neither liberal or conservative.

I know of families that chose to have an abortion because they could not afford another child. I know of families who chose to hold their child in their arms and not allow artifical life support to help their premature child live because their health insurance would not cover the care of their child. They would have been bankrupted and not be able to raise their other children properly. There is something wrong with society when good families have choose to have abortions or refuse artificial life support....

I chose to side with the Democrats because proper education is needed for our high school students on birth control and premarital sex to also help reduce abortions. Abstinence is the most effective birth control - 100%. But one can teach that even the use of condoms and birth control pills etc is NOT 100% - studies have shown that these are only 80 to 90% effective. If some women really understood how easily one can get pregnant or even get a sexually transmitted disease, premarital sex can be reduced.

There was a thoughtful article on belief.net about the issue of abortion - a pro-lifer chose to be a Democrat because he believed that changing socioeconomic policies would help to save some unborn children from abortion, which is better than saving no unborn children....

[joebiz]

The surrender of reason is the first victim of religion. The Catholic Church has taught or endorsed through dictatorial and no-democratic governemnts, among other things:

>That AIDS is bad, but condoms are worse;

>Poverty is a "gift from god" and that the poor will have a better life in the afterlife;

>In the Third and Developing World, procreation (the subjugation of women) is better than birth control(studies have shown that giving women control of their reproductive system is one of the best ways to cure proverty

> Non-believers are to burn in hell;

> Children that died without being baptized, were thought to be in limbo of infants (Gehenna)

However, in terms of abortion, there is not doubt that an embryo is a separate human body and entity. There are however, times when a fetus should not or the option not carry the fetus to term, is desireable or should be an option for a pregnant woman. The option should be availabel when the fetus is malformed or born with deep and severe congenital birth defects or will be stillborn. It is sad to say, but these birth would be much more cruel on the child. Abortions are part of biology and nature.

It's been the history of humanity that the way humans have controlled their reproductive cycles has been through prophylactics and abortion.

[Over50WhiteWoman]

Thank you, Ms. Lundgren, for bringing some rational thought to the issue of abortion. The Republicans, which I used to be, and the Catholics (of which I remain one), have focused everything on the 'legal' solution to the problem, a left/right, all or nothing choice. But it doesn't have to be. Somewhere a few years ago I read an argument about why Christians continue to try to get the government to do what the Churches are too uncomfortable to do, confront those who want to choose abortion. Some ethicists and theologians believe it is the role of the church in a free society to actually persuade Christians to behave morally, rather than persuading the government to enforce moral behavior. Even God does not force us, but permits free will. Without the freedom to choose the good or the bad, we are really not free to 'choose life'. That said, I have for years thought that we need to find the methods that work.

Look at smoking. Smoking behavior has changed dramatically in the last 50 years. Not because it was outlawed, but because people have become educated. It is really up to us to change their minds and let them change their behavior.

Sometimes it is simple: some have aborted because the man refused to marry and they could not afford to miss six weeks of work.

There are lots of ways to reduce abortions that don't involve forcing everyone to have the baby.

[relevancematters]

I agree (another 50+ white Catholic woman). Actually, I am a disillusioned Catholic; I quit participating at church when the bishops decided in 2004 that they could not only tell us how to vote, but also apparently thought they were directed by God to destroy a good man's reputation (Senator Kerry) and to promote nothing less than a treasonous partnership with theocratic neocons in order to solve a problem they couldn't solve themselves.

Legislating against abortion isn't going to stop it. Heaping Catholic (or Christian fundamentalist) guilt on non-Catholics isn't going to stop it. Supporting a party that has all but said it has no use for the "whining" middle-class isn't doing the work Jesus asked us to do. We must pull back and change the direction of the conversation; just like the Beltway, the Church too often operates in a bubble with no real knowledge of the situational ethics that prevail beyond the churchyard.

Young people need to be taught how to internalize real value systems (which Ms. Lundgren has done despite her lesser peers' efforts to derail her) before they make babies. The Church has done a piss-poor job of facilitating this up to now, relying instead on antiquated notions of authority and dogma when a good, honest discussion would be much more effective. You do not educate people by telling them they are WRONG; you do it by allowing them to discover the truth in a safe and intellectually stimulating environment.

[amsanvel]

Many things I've read in the comments are just misinformation about Catholic doctrine...
Anyway I just wanted to comment about your being disillusioned about the Catholic Church... We all have to remember that we believe that the Catholic Church is Holy but its members are human, and many of us are sinners... If we don't like a bishop or a priest or any other catholic, that doesn't mean we have to leave it all behind. There is so much beauty, reason, and truth in our Catholic Faith, we have to keep the whole picture in front of us..

[BK1313]

I'm curious about this question, If the republicans finally manage to outlaw abortion as they have been promising for years, how do they plan to enforce the ban? Put women in jail for having them? Locking up doctors (all of whom they have dehumanized by calling them "abortionists" who work in "abortion mills") who perform them? The death penalty for murder? They never talk about this.

[Gty85663]

You could ask that same question about any new law that comes into the books.

Once something that had been legal becomes illegal.

[NicasioKid]

Very good questions. I appreciate Lundgren's personal journey to really understand and do something about abortion. Roe v Wade was born from the shame and violence women endured to end unwanted pregnancies, and reversing that will return us to the days of "back alley abortions." We need to focus on preventing unwanted pregnancies - that's something we can all agree on, as long as that includes providing teens with access to birth control (we have seen how "effective" promoting abstinence has been for most young people).

[sews19]

Wake up America..
I am a catholic. A catholic sister of social services who is a executive director had this to say ABOUT ABORTION...She beleives OBAMA is in a better position to REDUCE the number of abortions because he plans to fund health care programs that would enable women to carry their children to term. In many cases women she see's in social services turn to abortion because they lack access to prenatal care and the economic means to support a child.
I will not vote for McCain even tho I do not beleive in abortion.....What about all the killings of our young men in a war that should never have been either all because of the worst president we have ever had the past 8 years.

[Gty85663]

I' d like to ask this Sister:

Would you agree then that if someone who already had children, but not the economic means to take care of that toddler that she kill the toddler? Or if they lack access to proper medical care that they should just murder their child? Of course not.

Why is a child ONLY protected once outside the womb?

People TURN to abortion because it's there -- and they aren't given any other choices.

I agree we must help those in need. But killing their babies just because they can't support them without the help of others is contrary to the Christian message.

He talks of REDUCING the number of abortions as if it's a simple wart removal operation. IT IS THE MURDER OF A CHILD!!!

Jesus would stand for no less than saving the life of an innocent child. I agree with you on the war, but that does not justify killing millions of babies at home!

[robandroll]

So are you trying to convince yourself that McCain is going to come in on his golden chariot and save all of these babies? Do you really believe that voting for a Republican and condemning our country to at least 4 more years of terrible leadership is the answer to the abortion problem? McCain could care less about abortion...it's only his way of tricking anyone ignorant enough to believe that republicans actually care. You are tricking yourself and are the very reason that we are the laughing stock of the world. The fact that we elected George Bush twice is embarrassing. The Rupublicans are not stupid, they realize that the US is full of bible beaters that are clearly okay with relying on faith and ingoring logic. I beg you to wisen up. If not for yourself, your family, and your community, please do it for our country.

[BK1313]

There is no doubt in my mind that abortion is objectively immoral. No self-respecting Catholic would try to prove that it is not. (Although many have.) BUT, a vote for the republicans is not necessarily a vote against abortion and it IS a vote against support for the living. Where I part with the bishops is that I do not see how overturning Roe v Wade (a very long shot at best) would eliminate abortion. And, no one has a plan for enforcement. The bishops themselves have taught that we should not be one-issue voters. When I compare the list of issues Senator Obama comes out way, way, way ahead. It is more than just the war. It is a whole way of governing and a complete lack of respect for all but the greediest and most dishonest among us. Abortion is legal but so is conversion. We must work for conversion of hearts regarding abortion and stop the evil road down which this republican administration and ticket are leading this nation.

[linzy]

Aren't we missing the key word "CHOICE?" Pro-choice. I may not believe in abortion or contraception but what gives me the right to interfere with your CHOICES? I'm not God. Don't quite understand why people can't figure it out that FINE: you don't want an abortion, I don't have a problem with it. Thomas Aquinas has/had a different idea of when life begins than Ms. Palin and her church. It is a personal religious issue and does not belong in the debate as far as I can see. Making it legal does not mean you have to get one the next time you get knocked up. IT'S YOUR CHOICE, hopefully made with good counsel of your minister, rabbi, imam, husband, father of the child (if involvedd) and whoever else you need counsel from. MY CHOICE NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S. Women wishing to terminate a pregnancy need it doen safely. Not something you get by making it illegal. It won't go away but will migrate back to the alleys and butchers. More important issues face the government other than what a women interprets her faith and what she does about a pregnancy. Easy for people with lots of cash to say "oh, we have to save the fetus, we can raise it or put it out for adoption." Check the numbers on adoptions. Not too good are they? If you don't want an abortion, FINE. Don't get one. But don't foist your subjective morality on me.

[Gty85663]

No, we cannot forget them and go with the current status flow. It may be seen as a “one issue”, but that’s because the issue itself is so important and touches on so many other issues that speaks volumes about our society. Perhaps we’ll start tossing out the old folks once we feel that they’ve become irrelevant? Sounds like I’ve gone too far? Well, I’d bet that 50 years ago had I suggested someone killing their baby to solve their problem that most decent people would have thought the same thing about that statement.

No, we cannot forget about them. If they lose our voices, they’ll have none.

[Gty85663]

While at some point in time abortion may not be an issue (as perhaps BOTH candidates will be pro-death); if there still are those running for office who believe the same – whether they actually do anything about it or not – my conscience will not allow me to vote otherwise.

One issue? Maybe. But at least I have had the blessing of a mother who didn’t decide to scrape me out of her womb and throw my life away. I was given the gift of life from my Creator and the chance to vote in the first place; and so far no one, including my mother, has tried to take it from me. But then again, I was blessed with such a mother who would have had choices OTHER than death for me had times been rough for her or if I had come at an inconvenient time in her life.

I am one of the fortunate ones, like you, who were given life and at least the opportunity to live it – unlike the millions of babies who aren’t so fortunate – never given a chance to live; their only existence consisting of a bloody horrific death in the supposed safest place to be.

[Gty85663]

While I disagree with war, I find it amazing that the same people who cry out against the innocent being killed in Iraq the last 5 years can be so unaware of the innocent millions that have been killed for over 30 years now in OUR country. Killed for “mistakes” that their parents made. Their parents make a mistake, and THEY pay with their innocent lives.

A “one issue” voter? Maybe. But like I said, what other issue justifies the killing of the defenseless innocent in such a horrific way? For goodness sakes – they even give criminals the option of lethal injection for a painless death!!! No, these innocent aren’t even given THAT option as a means to killing them – instead sharp, cold, intrusive instruments are shoved into their mother’s womb and they are murdered.

Less than 50 years ago, abortion was considered murder by ALL parties and ALL Christian denominations. Unwanted pregnancies ARE a problem, but murder is not the answer. Unfortunately, because our society has gotten used to the idea of legally killing innocent babies – most people don’t see it that way anymore. Instead of starting good social programs to help these struggling young mother’s with their pregnancy, they instead gave them the “choice” to kill their baby – sweep them under the rug – get rid of their problem – instead of giving them a better option like public assistance to help raise their child. Murder was made legal.

[Gty85663]

I’ll begin by saying that I am neither Democrat nor Republican. I agree mostly with the Democrats regarding social issues, except for abortion, of course.

Yes, a lot of people may be better off in a lot of ways if the Democrat’s social programs are put into play; but one cannot deny nor ignore the abortion issue. It trumps every other “good” that may come out of other social programs.

How could anyone in good conscience feel good about doing good things for others while millions of children continue to be slaughtered? They have no voice; they are silenced while they are murdered in their mothers’ wombs. No one hears their cries. Who will be their voice if we are not their voice?

This whole attitude of “well, nothing’s been done thus far, so let’s try something else” is nothing more than surrender to the idea that innocent lives can be sacrificed for the sake of making others’ lives more comfortable.

If we do not continue to be a voice for the millions of babies whose skulls are crushed as they are ripped out of their mothers’ wombs, then they will be forgotten. It seems as though this woman HAS forgotten about them.

She has experienced some very unfortunate situations with others regarding her beliefs, but she has forgotten why it is so important to NOT forget – the innocent murder of the defenseless – thee MOST defenseless whose cries no one hears.